The sentence “assign a consistent classification” sounds an awful lot like computing something to me. If you have a different meaning in mind then please elaborate. “Caught by the bug-checker” seems to be what people have settled on elsewhere.
The liar’s sentence isn’t incomputable, it just never returns a value. My point is that you can’t use a third variable to fix everything.
The sentence “assign a consistent classification” sounds an awful lot like computing something to me.
Something does get computed, but not the usual thing. It is possible to write a computer program that can use the symbol “pi.” It is not possible to write computer program to tell you every digit of pi. But on the other hand, if it’s as easy as writing “pi,” there’s not much point to thinking of it as a computer program.
The liar’s sentence isn’t incomputable, it just never returns a value.
If it was computable, it would return a value. If P->Q, then not Q->not P.
My point is that you can’t use a third variable to fix everything.
We agree: in fact, that was a central point—adding more states is still trying to compute the same thing, and so it won’t fix everything for the same reason using boolean arithmetic won’t fix everything. In order to handle the liar’s paradox we need to change the comparison operation (pretty sure, unless we avoid the problem), thus doing away with boolean arithmetic.
When I think “not computable” I think of things which aren’t implementable as computations. For the definition “implementable as a computation of finite length” versus as a program of finite length, pi seems to become incomputable… so that use of incomputable is weird to me.
I do believe that we agree. Creating a different solution to the liar paradox requires us to abandon formalism… but as far as I am aware the whole point of formalism is to give us good criteria for when our answers are satisfying, so I don’t really see how abandoning it helps.
The sentence “assign a consistent classification” sounds an awful lot like computing something to me. If you have a different meaning in mind then please elaborate. “Caught by the bug-checker” seems to be what people have settled on elsewhere.
The liar’s sentence isn’t incomputable, it just never returns a value. My point is that you can’t use a third variable to fix everything.
Something does get computed, but not the usual thing. It is possible to write a computer program that can use the symbol “pi.” It is not possible to write computer program to tell you every digit of pi. But on the other hand, if it’s as easy as writing “pi,” there’s not much point to thinking of it as a computer program.
If it was computable, it would return a value. If P->Q, then not Q->not P.
We agree: in fact, that was a central point—adding more states is still trying to compute the same thing, and so it won’t fix everything for the same reason using boolean arithmetic won’t fix everything. In order to handle the liar’s paradox we need to change the comparison operation (pretty sure, unless we avoid the problem), thus doing away with boolean arithmetic.
When I think “not computable” I think of things which aren’t implementable as computations. For the definition “implementable as a computation of finite length” versus as a program of finite length, pi seems to become incomputable… so that use of incomputable is weird to me.
I do believe that we agree. Creating a different solution to the liar paradox requires us to abandon formalism… but as far as I am aware the whole point of formalism is to give us good criteria for when our answers are satisfying, so I don’t really see how abandoning it helps.